Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case 22STCV24454 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Name: Jorge Cervantes, AKA Jorge Cervantes Velasquez v. Russ Ercolani, individually and dba Ercolani Law Group

Tentative Ruling: The Court grants the Motion to Approve Admissions of counsel to appear on behalf of Plaintiff pro hac vice.

This is a lawsuit for professional negligence. Jorge Cervantes (Plaintiff) sues his former personal injury attorney, Russ Ercolani (Defendant), for failing to bring an action within the statute of limitations period.

Plaintiff moves for an order granting the admission of Walter L. Bailey, Jr., and Taurus M. Bailey to appear on his behalf pro hac vice.

As the motion to approve admissions complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, the Court grants the motion.

An attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00 fee. The attorney cannot be a resident of California, employed in the state, or regularly engage in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the state. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)(1)-(3), (c)(1).)

The written application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office address; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1)-(6).)

The provided declarations comply with the California Rule of Court 9.40(d)(1)-(6). Neither attorney is regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in California. (Bailey Jr. Decl., ¶ 3; Bailey Decl., ¶ 3.) Both attorneys reside and work in Memphis Tennessee. (Id. at ¶ 1.) Neither attorney has been suspended or disbarred in any court and has not appeared pro hac vice in any other California-based lawsuits. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff’s counsel of record, Mr. Glickman, submitted a supplemental declaration indicating payment to the State Bar of California of $51.25 for the pro hac vice fee. Mr. Glickman avers to completing the pro hac vice application on the website, which includes providing notice of the hearing to the State Bar. (Glickman Supp. Decl., ¶ 2.)

Department 58